1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendant’s indemnity amounting to KRW 78,366,700 against the Plaintiff on July 27, 2015.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, as a lessee of the first floor, second floor, and underground floor of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Ground Building B (hereinafter “instant building”), is operating “C” in the foregoing leased part (hereinafter “instant restaurant”).

B. On July 27, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing indemnity of KRW 78,366,700 (the imposition period between June 20, 2010 and June 19, 2015) on the Plaintiff under Article 72 of the Road Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff occupied and used the instant restaurant’s parking lot (hereinafter “instant parking lot”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2, 9, Eul evidence 8 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) The instant parking lot site is classified as a road, but does not have the form of a road, and thus is not a road under the Road Act. The instant disposition based on the Road Act is unlawful.

(2) Even if the instant parking lot site is a road under the Road Act, the instant parking lot site falls under the generally necessary part for the use of the instant building site or the instant building. Since a person who installed a parking lot in the instant parking lot is not the Plaintiff, the instant parking lot site should be deemed to be possessed by the owner of the instant building or the installer of the instant parking lot.

Therefore, the instant disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff occupies the site for the instant parking lot is unlawful.

(3) Even if the Plaintiff occupied and used the instant parking lot, the Plaintiff, as a lessee of the instant building, is the instant parking lot.